a of life, are the same on either theory,
the difference lying in their explanation. All the facts of life are the
same; they may be interpreted equally well on either theory. It is
important to bear this in mind for reasons which will become apparent as
we proceed.

Now, the difference between M. Bergson's theory of life and that
commonly held is this: that, whereas one[13] regards life as created or
resulting from the total functioning of the body, the other regards it
as something separate and distinct--merely utilizing the body for the
purposes of its manifestation. In the one case, life is, as it were,
made; in the other, it exists apart from the body it animates, and is
merely associated with it. To sum up in two words, one is the
_production_ theory of life; the other is the _transmissive_. One theory
leads direct to materialism; the other allows all sorts of
possibilities, which are readily perceived by any student of these
questions.

Thus stated, the situation at once reminds us of the controversy which
raged some years ago as to the relation of brain and mind, as the result
of the publication of James' lecture on _Human Immortality_. He then
showed that it was quite possible to accept all the facts as to the
relation of brain and consciousness, yet interpret them in a different
manner; that there might be a transmissive function of the brain as well
as a productive or secretive function; and that the undoubted fact of
the inter-relation of the two sets of phenomena might just as well be
interpreted in one way as in the other. The mere facts proved no theory
true. As James so well said: "The psychologists noticed a connection,
and at once assumed that it was the only possible _kind_ of
connection"--which was not at all the case. Mere coincidence, in two
sets of phenomena, does not prove that they are _causally_ related; that
one produces the other. They may be quite separate from one another
(psycho-physical parallelism), or both may be aspects of something else,
etc. It is all a matter of interpretation, not of fact. But this is a
view of the case which is seldom perceived, it seems to me, by
psychologists generally. Seeing a coincidence, they at once postulate
causal relation, and then proceed as if this had been thoroughly and
scientifically established!

I have spoken of this analogy, drawn from psychology, because it bears
upon the problem before us in the clearest possible manner. Just as
consciousne